Kotaku Australia's Console Game Of The Year

We took your nominations, we took your votes, now it's time to announce the Kotaku Australia reader voted console game of the year!

And the winners are...

Winner

The Witcher 3

After seeing the blowout that was our PC game of the year, I suspected that The Witcher 3 would also take out our console award. But it was a little closer here. The Witcher 3 took out 26% of the vote.


Runner-up


Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

I thought this was an incredible video game, so I was glad to see people voting so heavily for it. This game took 14% of the vote.


3rd Place

Bloodborne

This was incredibly close. Bloodborne — my own personal favourite of 2015 — also took 14% but Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain had a tiny lead of five votes! So close!


Thanks to everyone who voted!


Comments

    Ouch, I don't like nuffin popliar

    That's not how you spell Splatoon.

      I know it's hard to accept, but I think the unwritten understanding was that games in this category were to be for current-generation consoles, not last-gen.

        Only by the most petty subjectivity could the Wii U be classified as "last-gen". There's nowhere a measure that says "only consoles with a cpu clock (or whatever other technical stat wholly unrelated to making a videogame 'fun') above this mark qualify as current gen".

          While I'm mostly poking fun at Gooky because that is a thing that we do as frenemies, I will bite to this one.

          I think it's perfectly valid. A 'generation' is colloquially used to describe leaps in power. And when your 'current gen' only has the power of the 'last gen' of your closest competitors, what is happening in real, practical terms, is you are only arriving at the last gen, just really bloody late.

            But shouldn't the leaps be counted form the previous generation of the same console's manufacturer? Taking in account that the Wii was the indisputable winner of the actual "last generation", I don't see how the Wii U, a significant tech leap over the Wii cannot be acknowledged as "current gen". Especially since it keeps putting out some of the most played games of the current generation.

              Because the context is console gaming, not Nintendo gaming. Nintendo's generational leaps are a generation behind everyone else, and that is naturally going to impact on their ability to stay relevant.

              Nothing happens in a vacuum. They're not competing with themselves... they're competing with the rest of the market.

              Last edited 17/12/15 2:43 pm

                You may argue that they are a generation behind, but the fact is that they are actually competing in not entirely unequal terms with the consoles that you gladly would call "current gen". The Wii U is releasing a significant percentage of the most played games these years. Isn't that an argument in and out of itself that technical stats do not a console "generation currentness" make?

                If you were actually looking at market shares and media relevance instead of looking at each console's specs-sheet there's no way you could arrive at any other conclusion that the Wii U is a current gen console.

                Last edited 17/12/15 2:58 pm

                  You don't compare generations of selling ability, it's a metric to quantify leaps in power or the way of doing things.

                  Candy-bar style brick-phones continued to sell very well, long after the advent of the smart phone, but you wouldn't consider them to be the same generation of phone technology by a long shot.

                Candy-bar style brick-phones continued to sell very well, long after the advent of the smart phone, but you wouldn't consider them to be the same generation of phone technology by a long shot.

                That is an inappropriate comparison. Brick phones are not competitors of smart phones but rather taking advantage of a niche created in the vacuum created around smart phones. They are precisely successful sellers because they are not competing against the smartphones. Nintendo is directly competing against Sony and Microsoft, obviously not in machine specs but in market appropriation, in the same market.

                Nevertheless, when talking about games, which is what this article and this website does, isn't it a sterile and almost depressing via of discussion to qualify games by the power of the machines in which they are played? Take the previous generation. There was no doubt that the PS3 was the most advanced and powerful machine of the three, while the Wii was laughably behind. And yet, the first few years of that generation were disastrous for the former and wonderful for the latter. What use would be to laud the PS3 as a current or even next generation system when most people were playing games in the other consoles? Why should judgement about a console's quality or currency come from technical aspects? Shouldn't judgement come from the fun they are providing their users?

                Last edited 17/12/15 5:41 pm

    Pretty cool that Bloodborne did so well with it being an exclusive. MGSV was released not only on PS4/XO but also on PS3/X360. I imagine a lot of PC players voted for The Witcher 3 as well, even if they didn't play it on console. So at the end of the day... Bloodborne wins!*

    *in my arbitrary re-jigging of the goalposts.

      You are wrong good sir! I played witcher 3 on the console but voted for it on the PC tally! AHA! I bet that threw all your calculations off.

      Last edited 17/12/15 12:06 pm

    I know most folks are criticizing Just Cause 3, but for me this game is the Console Game Of The Year

    Wow, shocked to see Bloodborne in the top 3, I thought it would have been Fallout 4 for sure.

    It does make me wonder what percentage of the Kotaku voting audience are PC gamers. Fallout cruised into second on that list but if cross-platform players voted for Fallout as a PC game then it makes perfect sense that they wouldn’t vote for it again if they didn’t play it on a console.

    It would also be a massive compliment to the Witcher 3 if a large audience on here played it on PC and it still took out console game of the year.

    wait if MGS5 and BB both got 14% of the vote, shouldnt then be given Equal Second Place rather than 2nd and 3rd?

      He addressed that by mentioning that MGSV had five actual votes more than BB.

        well then i guess i should the entire article more often xD

    Damn it. I tried to play MGS Ground Zeroes multiple times but the controls just feel terribly convoluted and it ruins the game for me. Such a shame since that means I'll never play MGS V.

    I don't own a console and didn't vote in this poll, but its awesome to see TW3 cleaning up.

    Just imagine how good MGSV would've been if they'd finished it...

    Has anyone got that .gif from Family Guy where they all drink a bottle of Ipecac each and proceed to vomit over each other?

    Just started playing dying light co-op with my brother tonight and it is a LOT better than I expected.
    When you're out combing for loot it's got a great walking dead vibe to it, quiet and still. Gameplay is great nowhere near as Janky as I thought it'd be....only thing I'd like would be a soft lock on maybe.
    Story doesn't seem great but in co op that doesn't matter too much , and the co op experience is designed fantastically; sharing loot and having to wait for quest triggering and also no drop outs or horseplay.
    Even Halo 5 weirds out sometimes with campaign co op, and has anyone tried played Van Helsing co op? Constant glitching , drop outs...it's so bad we don't even bother anymore.
    So tech land should be amended for this sort of thing. Best co op fun I've had all year.

    Congratulations Witcher

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now